Drexel Enterprises, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 16, 1969

180 N.L.R.B. 272 (N.L.R.B. 1969)

272 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Drexel Enterprises, Inc. and Southern Council of
Lumber and Plywood Workers, United
Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of
America, AFL-CIO. Case 11-CA-3870
December 16, 1969
DECISION AND ORDER
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board adopts as its Order the
Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner, and
hereby orders that Respondent, Drexel Enterprises,
Inc., Marion, North Carolina, its officers, agents,
successors, and assigns , shall take the action set
forth in the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order.
BY CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS
BROWN AND ZAGORIA
On September 15, 1969, Trial Examiner John M.
Dyer issued his Decision in the above-entitled
proceeding, finding that Respondent had engaged in
and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices
and recommending that Respondent cease and desist
therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set
forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision.
Thereafter, Respondent filed timely exceptions to
the Trial Examiner's Decision, and a supporting
brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
powers in connection with this proceeding to a
three-member panel.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial
Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no
prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are
hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial
Examiner's Decision, the exceptions, the brief, and
the entire record in the proceeding, and hereby
adopts the findings,' conclusions, and
recommendations of the Trial Examiner.'
'Respondent 's exceptions directed to the credibility resolutions of the
Trial Examiner are without merit The Board will not overrule the Trial
Examiner's resolutions as to credibility , unless a clear preponderance of all
relevant evidence convinces us that they are incorrect . On the entire record,
such conclusion is not warranted herein Standard Dry Wall Products,
Inc. 91 NLRB 544, enfd . 188 F.2d 362 (C.A 2) In any event we do not
rely on the conversations between Romme and Frady and between Byrd
and Duncan as found by the Trial Examiner.
'Respondent took exception, in part , to the Trial Examiner 's conclusion
that Respondent had knowledge of Frady's union sentiments The Trial
Examiner found that Frady was interrogated by a supervisor about his
union sympathies , and that Respondent interpreted his refusal to comment
as revealing his prounion attitude . Frady was also observed by a supervisor
while engaged in card solicitation , and the record indicates that the
supervisor watched Frady and the other employee for the time it took to
fill out the authorization card , a moment or more . The Trial Examiner
found that while the rule Frady was guilty of violating was one he had
breached in the past and had been broken repeatedly by other employees,
Frady was the only employee ever disciplined beyond a mild reprimand,
much less discharged , for such a violation. The Respondent claimed
Frady 's discharge was intended to act as an "example," but it does not
appear that employees were ever made aware of this "example " Indeed,
subsequent violations of the rule were treated with the same lack of
enforcement that characterized Respondent 's application prior to Frady's
"example "
In view of all the foregoing , we find the inference fully justified that
Respondent had knowledge or at least a suspicion of Frady's union
sentiments , and that Respondent discharged Frady for this reason.
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
JOHN M . DYER, Trial Examiner : The Southern Council
of Lumber and Plywood Workers, United Brotherhood of
Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO, herein
called the Union , on April 3, 1969,' filed a charge against
Drexel Enterprises , Inc., herein variously called
Respondent, the Employer or the Company, alleging that
Respondent had discriminatorily discharged Dewey Frady
on March 26 , in violation of the Act. The Director of
Region 11 of the National Labor Relations Board , herein
called the Board , on May 29 , issued a complaint alleging
that the said discharge was violative of Section 8(a)(3) and
(1) of the Act. Respondent ' s answer admitted the
necessary commerce allegations and the discharge of
Frady but denied that Respondent had in any way
violated the Act. Without objection a motion, by the
General Counsel at the inception of the hearing to amend
the complaint to add an allegation of interrogation
violative of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act, was allowed and
the violation denied by Respondent.
I reserved ruling on Respondent ' s motion to dismiss the
complaint. At the hearing held June 24 in Marion, North
Carolina , all parties were afforded full opportunity to
appear , to examine and cross-examine witnesses and
Respondent and the General Counsel argued orally on the
record.
On the entire record in this case including my
evaluation of the reliability of the witnesses based on the
evidence received and my observation of their demeanor, I
make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT AND THE LABOR
ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Respondent is a North Carolina corporation with one
of its plants located in Marion, North Carolina, where
Respondent is engaged in the manufacture of furniture.
During the preceding year Respondent received raw
materials valued in excess of $50,000 from points directly
outside of North Carolina and during the same period
shipped finished products valued in excess of $50,000 to
points directly outside of the State.
Respondent admits and I find that Respondent is
engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6)
and (7) of the Act.
Respondent admits and I find that the Union is a labor
organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the
Act.
'Unless otherwise stated all activities herein occured in 1969
180 NLRB No. 46
DREXEL ENTERPRISES , INC. 273
11. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Background and Undisputed Facts
The Company's Marion plants are under the direction
of Harold Alex Turner, plant manager. The furniture
manufacturing plant, known as plant 2, has as the cabinet
superintendent, Andrew Shirlen who advanced to that
position in early 1969 from his former position as foreman
of the cabinet room. Harvey Romine, who had been the
leadman on the case line in the cabinet room, then
became foreman. Herman Morgan is the foreman of the
sanding department in plant 2, with machines and men
located both in the cabinet room and in the sanding room,
one floor below. Frady first worked with Morgan when he
started with the Company more than 8 years before his
discharge. At the time of the events herein, Oscar
Arrowood was the leadman on the case line but he has
since been moved to a position as lead case fitter.
Adjoining plant 2 is plant 9, which was also known as
the phone booth department. Although physically
separated, these two departments join and in order to
leave plant 2 it is necessary to go through the phone booth
department. Up until the first part of 1969, the timeclock
and timecards for plant 2 were located at the other end of
plant 9 outside the canteen used by the employees. In
leaving the case fitting department it is necessary to go
down either the front or rear stairs and go through the
phone booth department . Sometime after the first of the
year the timeclock was moved closer to plant 2.
It is undisputed that the Company has a rule that
employees should continue working until a whistle or
buzzer sounds at noontime, before leaving for their lunch
period . The Company also has a rule regarding cleaning
up and leaving work, which provides that when the whistle
or buzzer sounds at 3:42 p.m. the employees blow off their
work, and themselves, and put away their tools
preparatory to leaving their department when the 3:45
p.m. buzzer sounds. If employees are scheduled to work
overtime they are to work until 3:45 p.m. when they can
leave the department for a 10-minute break to get
something to eat at the canteen if they wish , and then
return to work a usual 2-hour overtime period.
Dewey Frady testified that the Union started its
campaign in the Company's Marion plant on February 15.
C. P. Rinehardt , vice president of Respondent in charge
of industrial relations, testified that the union campaign
started at the plant on February 18, with the distribution
of leaflets and mail - in union authorization cards. In any
event there is no dispute that Respondent knew of the
union campaign shortly after it began at the Marion
plant.
Rinehardt further testified that due to employee
questions concerning the Company's position on
unionization , Respondent determined , with its counsel, to
prepare and circulate a letter to all of its employees.
Under date of March 27, a three -page letter signed by
Respondent President G. Maurice Hill was distributed to
all of Respondent ' s employees . According to Rinehardt
this letter was prepared over a 10-day to 2-week period,
by himself and company counsel prior to its issuance.
Basically the Company ' s position , as expressed in this
letter , was that employees did not need a union , and the
letter made this point with some expressions of animus
towards the Union . On the third page , the letter, after
urging that employees carefully read any union
authorization cards they were asked to sign , quoted
language from the Union ' s authorization card making it
clear that employees by signing the card were authorizing
the Union to act as their collective-bargaining agent.
Following this enjoinder the letter stated.
Look around you! Are you willing to turn over your
affairs to the people in your plant who are working for
the Union or to these strangers who have suddenly
come into your midst?
The letter concludes with an appeal that employees and
the Company continue to work together and a statement
that the Company will oppose unionization with every
legal means.
Respondent's remark concerning those employees active
in soliciting on behalf of the Union indicates Respondent
knew the identity of the employee campaign leaders and
evidently viewed them in a derogatory fashion for their
part in the union campaign.
Dewey Frady, during his 8 years' employment with
Respondent, worked his way up from the sanding
department to the skilled position of a case fitter on the
case line, earning the top wage rate underneath
Respondent's supervisory level. The Company agreed that
Frady was a highly skilled worker and that it had no
quarrel with his work or job qualifications.
Frady testified that on March 26, when he was
scheduled to work overtime, another employee asked him
to get her a drink from the canteen and that he left the
department and went down the stairs towards the canteen
l or 2 minutes prior to the 3:45 buzzer While in the
phone booth department walking towards the canteen, his
foreman, Harvey Romine, stopped him. Romine testified
he was down there looking for anyone who might leave
the department early. According to Frady, Romine said
"I warned you'uns and I told you not to be down here.
Now go get your tools and come to the office and get
your time." Frady received a check in the office and left.
Frady's discharge slip said he was discharged for
disobeying company rules and leaving his department
without permission
Basically the question in this case is whether
Respondent's motive in discharging Frady was for the
stated ground of his infraction of company rules, or that
the stated reason was merely a colorable excuse to mask a
discharge effected because of Frady's union activities and
sentiments . As in most cases involving motive there is no
direct testimony which clearly establishes Respondent's
motive. Here the motive or one of the moving causes of
the discharge must be discerned and inferred from the
circumstances , actions, statements, and company policies
and practices which form the background of this
discharge. Certainly the questions of whether the 3:45
p.m. rule regarding leaving a department was rigidly or
laxly enforced, whether disciplinary action had been taken
against other persons for violating such rule, or whether,
in fact, the rule was violated by others and such action
tolerated by Respondent; and what the purpose of the
discharge was and whether Respondent acted thereon, all
bear on resolving the issue.
B. Evidence Bearing on the Discharge
The General Counsel produced testimony from
employees Reel, Flynn, Lawing, Jones, and Goforth that
on a number of occasions each of them left the cabinet
room department between 3:42 and 3:45 p.m., either to
reach the timeclock early and punch out or to go to the
canteen for refreshments when working overtime. Frady
testified that he had left early on previous occasions also.
274 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Flynn and Reel both testified , moreover , that on a
number of occasions when they left early , they had been
seen doing so by their supervisors who said nothing to
them about such rule violations . Flynn testified that on a
particular occasion when he was scheduled to work
overtime he left the department early between the 3:42
and 3 :45 p.m. buzzers to get refreshments at the canteen
and was seen by Foreman Harvey Romine who said
nothing to Flynn about his leaving the department early.
Flynn testified that on one occasion he was with a group
of employees in the phone booth department and Romine
told them he wished they would stay upstairs in the
department.
Flynn testified that following Frady' s discharge he had
left the department and gone down the steps between the
3:42 and 3:45 p.m. buzzers , and was seen by Foreman
Romine who said nothing to him about it. On
cross-examination Flynn testified:
We are supposed to stay there and blow off , and I blow
off before the whistle blows .... And after that we ease
on down toward the clock before the second one blows.
Q. So you will be at the clock when the last whistle
blows?
A. Yes.
Q. I ask you if any supervisor has ever told you not
to do that?
A. No, not that I recall or remember right off.
Employee Lawing said he had been caught out of the
department between the two buzzers on a couple of
occasions , once by Shirlen when he was foreman and later
by Romine and on both occasions he was asked merely to
stay in his department.
Foreman Harvey Romine testified as to what he told
employees he found out of the department:
I asked him not to do it to help me out , that is a
way that I approach a fellow the first time , and the
second time , I tell him that he had better not do it no
more.
Regarding Frady's discharge , Romine testified that
after he caught Frady in the telephone booth department:
I asked him if he hadn ' t been warned enough about
being down there , and he said yes. And I said it looks
like the only way to solve this problem is that I am just
going to have to let you go.
And he said , no don ' t do that, I will never do it
again . And I said no , that is the only way it looks like
we are going to solve the problem of people staying on
their job in the cabinet room until the final whistle
blows.
Romine stated he then got Frady' s timecard and told the
personnel department to pay Frady off, that he had been
fired.
I do not credit the particulars of the version of the
conversation given by Romine . Romine seemed to pick up
the indefinite terms used by Plant Manager Turner, who,
in talking about employees being warned , used the term
that the person had been warned sufficiently . Here, we
have Romine saying that Frady had been warned enough
and that Frady admitted he had been. I credit Frady's
version that he was not asked such a question and believe
he would not have given the answer attributed to him by
Romine . Under the circumstances extant I can believe
Frady might have answered affirmatively to a question
whether he had been warned , but I cannot credit that he
would have agreed he had been warned sufficiently or
enough to merit discharge.
Employee Don Mitchell testified he overheard a
conversation between Foreman Byrd and an assistant
personnel man, George Duncan , both of whom
Respondent admitted were supervisors . According to
Mitchell , Byrd asked why they did not fire Don Mitchell
for wearing union badges and giving out union literature
and Duncan replied they could not fire Mitchell right
then , but would fire him when they got a chance, and
anybody else who worked for the Union.
Testifying for Respondent, Foreman Byrd said he did
not remember or recall such a conversation but admitted
that he did ask Duncan who Mitchell was. George Duncan
testified that he did not recall Byrd saying anything to
him regarding Mitchell . When asked if he knew of anyone
in the plant wearing a union button , Duncan responded he
knew a number of them . When asked to identify such
employees he could only identify Mitchell and two
Honeycutts . On the basis of the inability of Duncan and
Byrd to recall or remember the event and it not being
denied , I credit Mitchell ' s version of this testimony.
As to Respondent ' s particular knowledge of Frady's
union activities , Frady and Reel testified that around
mid-March after prior requests by Frady, Reel agreed to
sign a union authorization card . Frady met Reel near the
top of the front steps and gave him a blank card which
Reel took to a nearby bench and filled out. While he was
doing so Foreman Harvey Romine came up the steps
some 8 to 10 feet from them, observed them and what
Reel was doing , since they were turned sideways to him,
and as Romine started on into the department Reel
returned the completed card to Frady
Apparently similar authorization cards had been
distributed by the Union in a handbilling of the plant on
February 19, and as noted above , Respondent was aware
of the cards and their content . With Respondent ' s animus
towards the Union , an event such as described by Reel
and Frady would not have gone unnoticed by Foreman
Romine . I find that he did observe the scene and conclude
that Frady was soliciting for the Union.
In distributing union authorization cards Frady, on one
morning before work began , went into another department
and gave some authorization cards to an employee named
Miller and , as he was turning to leave and go to his
department , took about one step and ran into Sanding
Department Foreman Morgan who put a hand on his
shoulder . Frady testified he did not know whether Morgan
saw him pass the authorization cards to Miller or not, but
on the following day Morgan came over to Frady's bench
and asked if Frady was for the Union . Frady responded
that he was not going to tell him . Morgan said he was
against the Union the same way that Frady was against
liquor . Some months prior Frady who had opposed a
liquor referendum in the town , had asked Morgan to sign
an anti-liquor petition.
Morgan testified he did not recall seeing Frady with
Wilson in his department but did not deny it . He admitted
being at Frady ' s bench and said Frady talked to him
about the Union and asked how he (Morgan ) felt about
the Union . He admitted making the remark about being
against the Union as Frady was against whiskey but said
Frady did not say whether he was for or against the
Union.
In the context of company animosity towards the
Union, including stated animosity by supervisors, an
equivalent answer or refusal to answer by an employee
concerning his union sentiments would amount to a
confession of prounion sentiment. Certainly an employee
who was against the Union would not hesitate to say so to
DREXEL ENTERPRISES, INC.
a supervisor in an atmosphere of antiunionism as stated
by the supervisor . Morgan could and probably did assume
from Frady's refusal to comment that Frady was
prounion . Further in the context of the Reel cardsigning
and Respondent ' s remark in its letter concerning
employees who were working for the Union, I am
convinced that Respondent , and in particular Foreman
Romine , knew of Frady ' s prounion sentiments and
activities when he discharged Frady.
Testimony established that Respondent did not in any
way publicize the reason it gave for Frady's discharge.
Romine testified telling Frady when he discharged him
that such action was the only way of solving the problem
of people staying in the cabinet room until the final
whistle . If indeed that was Romine ' s purpose in
discharging Frady it was not thereafter acted upon. No
announcements were made concerning the rule and the
punishment meted out to Frady. Even when Romine
caught employees violating the same rule following
Frady's discharge, he either ignored them (as per Flynn,
supra ) or merely asked them to remain in the cabinet
room , and said nothing to them about Frady' s fate or that
they could share a similar fate for further violation of this
rule. If Romine ' s statement were true, it is
incomprehensible that Frady's discharge was not used as
an example to other employees to bolster the rule. The
nonuse of the Frady discharge in this manner would
indicate that the purpose was otherwise ; to deter union
activities and sympathies.
Respondent in attempting to prove that the discipline
applied to Frady was in line with discipline meted out in
the past , had Plant Manager Turner testify that on two
occasions employees who had quit work early or had left
the department early had been given an option of quitting
or being fired by their foreman . Both instances related by
Plant Manager Turner were second or third hand
testimony . Respondent did not bring in or explain the
absence of the supervisor involved in one of these alleged
happenings so that we have no reliable testimony to the
alleged event . Andrew Shirlen testified that while he was a
foreman one of his employees stopped work some 10
minutes before lunchtime and in doing so had not only
idled himself but two helpers who were working on the
machine . On that occasion , according to Shirlen , he told
the employee he would allow him to quit so that a
discharge would not show on his record and the employee
resigned . This event is Respondent ' s nearest analogy to
the discipline meted out to Frady . Therefore Respondent
did not show that it had ever taken disciplinary measures
of any sort ( including written reprimands or layoffs) for
violation of this rule . Frady's discharge stands alone as
the first disciplinary measure other than verbal reminders
for violation of the 3 : 45 p.m. rule.
C. Analysis
Frady was active on behalf of the Union and secured
employee signatures on union authorization cards in the
plant , one of which was observed by Foreman Romine.
Frady was questioned regarding his union sentiments by
Foreman Morgan and, by not acquiescing in the anitunion
position expressed by Morgan , clearly put himself in the
position of favoring the Union . The Company 's letter,
composed some time prior to Frady 's discharge and
distributed to all the employees the day after his
discharge , demonstrates both the Company' s animus
towards the Union and knowledge of those who were
soliciting on behalf of it. The statements of Supervisors
275
Duncan and Byrd, as overheard by Mitchell, further
demonstrate the extent of the Company's animosity
towards employees who were prounion.
There is no dispute that Frady violated the Company's
rule concerning leaving his department, on the day of his
discharge and was given that fact as the reason for his
discharge with the appendage that by his discharge others
might be dissuaded from violating the rule. Neither Frady
or anyone else insofar as this record shows knew or was
warned that discharge or any other disciplinary measure
would be incurred for violation of this rule. Further,
Respondent did not establish that any disciplinary
measure , let alone discharge, was ever meted out for a
violation of this particular rule. The nearest example
Respondent showed was that an employee was given the
option of quitting or being discharged after his foreman
discovered that he had ceased work some 10 minutes
before the lunch period, thereby idling himself and two
other employees. This example is in an entirely different
area. Frady merely utilized part of the regular 3-minute
cleanup period to go to the canteen for refreshments for
himself and another employee who were going to work
overtime. No option was given Frady of quitting rather
than being discharged.
The available testimony indicates that the 3:45 p.m.
rule followed a diverse course, with supervisors sometimes
admonishing employees to observe the rule and at other
times saying nothing although observing breeches of the
rule by employees.
Frady was told at the time of his discharge by Foreman
Romine that the only way to stop the practice of
employees leaving early was to discharge Frady, which
would indicate that Frady's discharge would be used as a
warning example to all the employees. As noted above,
Frady's discharge was not so used even by the foreman
concerned, Harvey Romine. Other employees violated the
rule thereafter with no mention of the Frady "example"
by Romine, either the act being ignored or only a mild
reproof being given. Frady was a case fitter earning the
highest amount under the supervisory level with an 8-year
employment history as a valued employee of Respondent.
The occasion of his discharge was only the second
occasion on which Romine had found Frady out of the
department. Contrary to Romine's stated method of
procedure concerning what he did in warning a person a
second time for violation of this rule, Romine here
discharged Frady, going further than anyone had ever
gone before in disciplining an employee for violation of
this rule.
In weighing these facts it is clear that Romine, in
discharging Frady, acted contrary to all past plant
practices and to the events which occurred later. The
discharge of a valued employee for such a slight violation
would cause questions even if disciplinary measures had
been taken in the past . Where no disciplinary measures
have been taken for violation of the rule previously or
since , despite repeated rule violations by others, it is
evident that the treatment accorded Frady was
discriminatory. Considering this in the light of
Respondent ' s union animus , its knowledge of Frady's
prounion sentiments and activities , and his history as a
valuable employee I must conclude that Respondent's
advanced reason is pretextual to mask its purpose of
ridding itself of a prounion employee, and thus violative of
Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act. Frady's union
sympathy and activities were here a motivating factor in
his discharge and without them and Respondent 's animus
towards the Union, Respondent would not have
276 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
disciplined Frady or at least not in this manner.
The conversation of Frady and Supervisor Morgan I
find to be an unlawful interrogation violative of Section
8(a)(1) of the Act, which as an isolated action I would not
find warranted remedial action in the absence of the
8(a)(3) violation.
111. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
UPON COMMERCE
The activities of Respondent set forth above in section
11, and therein found to constitute unfair labor practices
in violation of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act,
occurring in connection with Respondent's business
operations as set forth above in section 1, have a close,
intimate, and substantial relationship to trade, traffic, and
commerce among the several States and tend to lead to
labor disputes, burdening and obstructing commerce and
the free flow of commerce.
IV. THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent engaged in the unfair
labor practices set forth above, I recommend that it cease
and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action
designed to effectuate the policy of the Act as follows:
I have found that Respondent discriminatorily
discharged Dewey Frady on March 26, 1969, because of
his union sympathies, activities, and desires and
recommend that Respondent offer him immediate and full
reinstatement to his former position, or if that position is
unavailable due to a change in Respondent's operations,
then to a substantially equivalent position, without
prejudice to his seniority and all other rights and
privileges. Respondent shall make him whole for any loss
of pay he may have suffered by reason of Respondent's
discrimination against him, by payment to him of a sum
equal to that which he would have received as wages from
the date of his discharge until the date Respondent
reinstates him, less any net interim earnings. Backpay is
to be computed on a quarterly basis in the manner
established by the Board in F W Woolworth Company,
90 NLRB 289, with interest at the rate of 6 percent per
annum to be computed in the manner set forth in Isis
Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716. 1 further
recommend that Respondent make available to the Board,
upon request, payroll and other records in order to
facilitate checking the amounts of backpay due and the
rights of Dewey Frady.
Respondent interrogated one of its employees regarding
his union activities and sympathies but did not engage in a
broad attack on its employees' rights under the Act. It is
therefore recommended that Respondent be ordered to
cease and desist from violating the Act in the same or a
similar manner to the violations found.
On the basis of the foregoing findings and the entire
record, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Drexel Enterprises , Inc., is an employer engaged in
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of
the Act.
2. The Union is a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
3. By discriminatorily discharging Dewey Frady on
March 26 , 1969, and not thereafter having reinstated him
to his position because of his union sympathies, activities,
and desires, Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in
unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the
meaning of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) and Section 2(6) and
(7) of the Act
4. Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair
labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of
Sections 8(a)(l) and 2(6) and (7) of the Act by
interrogating an employee concerning his union
sympathies, activities, and desires.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and
conclusions of law and the entire record in this case
considered as a whole, it is recommended that Drexel
Enterprises , Inc., of Marion , North Carolina, its officers,
agents, successors , and assigns , shall:
I Cease and desist from:
(a) Discharging and refusing to reinstate any employee
in order to discourage him and other employees from
being or becoming union members.
(b) Interrogating employees concerning their union
sympathies , activities , and desires.
(c) In the same or any similar manner , interfering with,
restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of
their rights to self-organization , to form labor
organizations , to join or assist Southern Council of
Lumber and Plywood Workers, United Brotherhood of
Carpenters and Joiners of America , AFL-CIO, to bargain
collectively through representatives of their own choosing
and to engage in concerted activities for the purposes of
collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection.
2 Take the following affirmative action which is
necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Offer to Dewey Frady reinstatement in accordance
with the recommendations set forth in the section of this
Decision entitled "The Remedy."
(b) Make Dewey Frady whole for any loss of pay he
may have suffered by reason of Respondent's
discrimination against him in accordance with the
Recommendations set forth in the section of this Decision
entitled "The Remedy."
(c) Preserve and upon request make available to the
Board or its agents , for examination and copying, all
payroll records, social security payment records,
timecards , personnel records and reports, and all other
records necessary to analyze the amounts of backpay due
and the other rights and privileges accorded to Dewey
Frady as set forth in the section of this Decision entitled
"The Remedy."
(d) Notify the above-named employee if presently
serving in the Armed Forces of the United States of his
right to full reinstatement upon application in accordance
with the Selective Service Act and the Universal Military
Training and Service Act, as amended, after discharge
from the Armed Forces.
(e) Post at its Marion , North Carolina, plant, copies of
the attached notice marked "Appendix ."' Copies of said
'in the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board, the
words "a Decision and Order" shall be substituted for the words "the
Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner" in the notice In the further
event that the Board's Order is enforced by a decree of a United States
Court of Appeals , the words "a Decree of the United States Court of
Appeals Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words "a
Decision and Order."
DREXEL ENTERPRISES, INC.
notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for
Region 11, after being duly signed by Respondent's
representative, shall be posted by Respondent immediately
upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60
consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places,
including all places where notices to employees are
customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by
Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material.
(f) Notify the Regional Director for Region 11, in
writing, within 20 days from the receipt of this Decision,
what steps have been taken to comply herewith.'
'In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board,
this provision shall be modified to read - "Notify the Regional Director for
Region 11, in writing , within 10 days from the date of this Order, what
steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith "
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial
Examiner of the National Labor Relations Board and in
order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify our
employees that:
Following a trial in which the Company, the Union,
and the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations
Board participated and offered their evidence, it has been
found that we violated the National Labor Relations Act.
277
We have been ordered to post this notice and to abide by
what we say in this notice.
WE WILL NOT ask our employees about their union
sympathies , activities , or desires.
WE WILL offer Dewey Frady his former job with all
his rights and any backpay due him
WE WILL notify Dewey Frady if presently serving in
the Armed Forces of the United States of his right to
full reinstatement upon application in accordance with
the Selective Service Act and the Universal Military
Training and Service Act, as amended , after discharge
from the Armed Forces.
WE WILL NOT discharge , layoff, or refuse to hire or
rehire any employee in order to try to discourage our
employees from being or becoming members of the
Southern Council of Lumber and Plywood Workers,
United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of
America, AFL-CIO.
All our employees are free to become or remain union
members.
Dated By
DREXEL ENTERPRISES, INC.
(Employer)
(Representative) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days
from the date of posting and must not be altered, defaced,
or covered by any other material.
If employees have any question concerning this notice
or compliance with its provisions, they may communicate
directly with the Board's Regional Office, 1624 Wachovia
Building, 301 North Main Street, Winston-Salem, North
Carolina 27101, Telephone 919-723-9211.